Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Does A New Scientific Report on Gender Identity Support the Church?


Recommended Posts

Posted
34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Because the reality might be far more complicated than that. 

As much as you would like your assumptions to be accepted without question, ALarson, things are often not that simple. 

Being born gay is not simple.   Do you believe that no one is born gay and that all gays have chosen to become so?

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

A change of goal posts.  Okay.

I agree, each individual IS empowered to determine his/her own destiny and is accountable for his/her sexual behavior.  Never have I argued otherwise.

I made an error in my post. I meant to say "deny the reality," not "accept the reality." I've fixed my post accordingly.

Quote

I agree, each individual IS empowered to determine his/her own destiny and is accountable for his/her sexual behavior.  Never have I argued otherwise.

But it's harder to realize that, isn't it, if you believe a person's nature is unalterably (or "immutably" to use your word) fixed at birth, and he can't do anything about it? Isn't that why ALarson was so frustrated in his last post when he cried out that we should "just accept" a gay person is "born that way" and not have any discussion about it?

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Posted
8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Being born gay is not simple.   Do you believe that no one is born gay and that all gays have chosen to become so?

Yes, no one is born gay.  Gay is a relatively recent western social construct.

No one chooses their attractions in the manner of the false dichotomy you have presented.  We can't take on and off attractions like clothing, but also don't develop attractions in a vacuum.

 

-guerreiro9

Posted
10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But it's harder to realize that, isn't it, if you believe a person's nature is unalterably (or "immutably" to use your word) fixed at birth, and he can't do anything about it? Isn't that why ALarson was so frustrated in his last post when he cried out that we should "just accept" a gay person is "born that way" and not have any discussion about it?

No, it isn't harder to realize that.  The person can still decide how they are going to act on their orientation, even if they can't change it.

But we do get problems, such as the issue of church members entering mixed orientation marriages because that is the only reasonable option provided them by their religious beliefs.

Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But it's harder to realize that, isn't it, if you believe a person's nature is unalterably (or "immutably" to use your word) fixed at birth, and he can't do anything about it? Isn't that why ALarson was so frustrated in his last post when he cried out that we should "just accept" a gay person is "born that way" and not have any discussion about it?

Uh...a bit dramatic, aren't you?  I was definitely not frustrated and you think that I "cried out"?  Wow :lol:

You just seem to be going to great lengths here to make the twists and turns it takes to believe that Lesley Gore wasn't born gay, but became gay in college.  It seems a bit silly to me.  And then what?  She just decided to remain gay for the rest of her life?  Her being born gay makes much more sense than having to resort to that type of reasoning.

.

Edited by ALarson
Posted
3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Uh...a bit dramatic, aren't you?  I was definitely not frustrated and you think that I "cried out"?  Wow :lol:

You just seem to be going to great lengths here to make the twists and turns it takes to believe that Lesley Gore wasn't born gay, but became gay in college.  It seems a bit silly to me.  And then what?  She just decided to remain gay for the rest of her life?  Her being born gay makes much more sense than having to resort to that type of reasoning.

.

How does it make more sense? That's not self-evident.

She had boyfriends in high school. She was scheduled to be married.

Obviously, the lesbian option didn't even occur to her until she went to college and, how did she put it, "explored" her feelings.

Posted
4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Uh...a bit dramatic, aren't you?  I was definitely not frustrated and you think that I "cried out"?  Wow :lol:

.

It's part of Scott's MO... notice he declared that I was "testy" and exhibiting "rancor".  Now he is claiming that you are "frustrated" and crying out.

Posted
1 minute ago, rockpond said:

It's part of Scott's MO... notice he declared that I was "testy" and exhibiting "rancor".  Now he is claiming that you are "frustrated" and crying out.

And I have a "chip on [my] shoulder."  I didn't want to be left out.

Posted
1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How does it make more sense? That's not self-evident.

She had boyfriends in high school. She was scheduled to be married.

Obviously, the lesbian option didn't even occur to her until she went to college and, how did she put it, "explored" her feelings.

Do you honestly think that her having boyfriends in high school or getting engaged means that she couldn't have been lesbian at the time?  Do you comprehend that gay and lesbian people deny their orientation and try to live differently for a variety of reasons?

Posted
30 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Being born gay is not simple.   Do you believe that no one is born gay and that all gays have chosen to become so?

Unlike your august self, I don't possess enough information to dogmatize definitively one way or the other on the question.

Posted
7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Do you honestly think that her having boyfriends in high school or getting engaged means that she couldn't have been lesbian at the time?  Do you comprehend that gay and lesbian people deny their orientation and try to live differently for a variety of reasons?

So you know for a fact that's what she was doing?

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How does it make more sense? That's not self-evident.

She had boyfriends in high school. She was scheduled to be married.

Obviously, the lesbian option didn't even occur to her until she went to college and, how did she put it, "explored" her feelings.

You can't possibly know that is true (section I put in bold above).  

I have a sister-in-law who is gay (and knew she was gay at a very young age) and she dated boys in high school.  Gay people have also gotten married (even knowing they are gay). That has nothing to do with whether or not they were born gay.

.

Edited by ALarson
Posted
9 minutes ago, ttribe said:

And I have a "chip on [my] shoulder."  I didn't want to be left out.

No, you are omniscient. Get it right.

But regarding the chip on the shoulder, I think I did predict about a month ago that, according to pattern, you would be back here, maybe within a month, trying to pick another fight with me over something I said or did that you didn't like. My prediction came true, it seems.

 

Posted
1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, you are omniscient. Get it right.

But regarding the chip on the shoulder, I think I did predict about a month ago that, according to pattern, you would be back here, maybe within a month, trying to pick another fight with me over something I said or did that you didn't like. My prediction came true, it seems.

 

[sigh]  I wasn't trying to pick a fight.  You could stand to lighten up, though.  It was rather tame teasing; I'm pretty sure you will live.

Posted
9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Unlike your august self, I don't possess enough information to dogmatize definitively one way or the other on the question.

How about you just answer my question instead of dodging it? ;)

Do you believe that some people are born gay?

Posted
4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You can't possibly know that is true (section I put in bold above).  

I have a sister-in-law who is gay (and knew she was gay at a very young age) and she dated boys in high school.  Gay people have also gotten married (even knowing they are gay). That has nothing to do with whether or not they were born gay.

.

Based on what she said in the interview I cited earlier (that if others knew she was lesbian, they knew it before she did) and putting it together with the biography you cited, it seems clear to me that it was not something she was considering in her teen years. I'll grant that it might not be obvious to you.

Posted
3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

[sigh]  I wasn't trying to pick a fight.  You could stand to lighten up, though.  It was rather tame teasing; I'm pretty sure you will live.

What? You can't abide reciprocal teasing?

Yes, I'll live.

And I'm off home now. Have a good evening.

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Based on what she said in the interview I cited earlier (that if others knew she was lesbian, they knew it before she did) and putting it together with the biography you cited, it seems clear to me that it was not something she was considering in her teen years. I'll grant that it might not be obvious to you.

Considering it and knowing it are two different things.   That may have been what she was exploring.

Edited by ALarson
Posted
5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

How about you just answer my question instead of dodging it? ;)

Do you believe that some people are born gay?

You need to understand the difference between candidly admitting one doesn't have an answer and dodging the question.

And with that, I'm gone. I may or may not be back. Enjoy yourselves in any case.

 

Posted
Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

You need to understand the difference between candidly admitting one doesn't have an answer and dodging the question.

And with that, I'm gone. I may or may not be back. Enjoy yourselves in any case.

 

And...another dodge.  But ok, I understand why you're avoiding answering the question.

Thanks.  You enjoy yourself as well (and I mean that sincerely).

Posted
11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And...another dodge.  But ok, I understand why you're avoiding answering the question.

Thanks.  You enjoy yourself as well (and I mean that sincerely).

Actually, you don't understand if you're still accusing me of dodging the question.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Actually, you don't understand if you're still accusing me of dodging the question.

So, your answer to my question:  "Do you believe that some people are born gay?", is that "you have no answer"?

Ok.

Posted
50 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's part of Scott's MO... notice he declared that I was "testy" and exhibiting "rancor".  Now he is claiming that you are "frustrated" and crying out.

Lately it seems to have become a board habit, attributing emotional responses to posts.  Scott is not the only one.  It would be nice if everyone resisted the temptation to go there.

Posted (edited)

 

1 hour ago, guerreiro9 said:

Yes, no one is born gay.  Gay is a relatively recent western social construct.

What does the recency of the construct have to do with its validity? If the construct were older would it be more valid? In 100 years will it be more valid than it is now?

 

Quote

No one chooses their attractions in the manner of the false dichotomy you have presented.  We can't take on and off attractions like clothing, but also don't develop attractions in a vacuum.

 

-guerreiro9

Are you aware of any evidence to suggest that sexual orientation is influenced by non-biological factors?

Edited by Gray
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...